Robert Maguire v. Uxbridge, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253779)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 2, 2026 SPR25/3779 Steven A. Sette Town Manager Town of Uxbridge 21 South Main Street Uxbridge, MA 01569 Dear Mr. Sette: I have received the petition of Robert Maguire appealing the response of the Town of Uxbridge (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 3, 2025, Mr. Maguire made the following request: …We would like to know the current status of the Insurance Advisory Committee and any planned meeting schedule for this committee given the insurance conversations that are taking place. Additionally, we have noted on the town’s website that the IAC’s last posted meeting/minutes are from several years ago. Has the IAC met more recently than what has been posted online and are there minutes of those meetings available? Lastly, we have been told verbally by [an identified individual] that he plans to not continue as the IAC retiree’s representative... Can you tell us the process/timeline by which [an identified individual] would be replaced so we can advise our interested members[?] We are also reaching out to follow up with you regarding some data points that a member of our group reached out to you about this past summer… Recently, we met with a representative from Mass Retirees who provides advisory services around the state for group health issues and negotiations. They have informed us that MIAA has access to this information that we are interested in and can readily provide it. Therefore, we would like to request this information from you again. The initial details requested include: [1] The number of Uxbridge retirees currently on the Town’s insurance coverage (not Medicare eligible). The cost of those plans both for individuals and couples. The cumulative cost to the town for this group. The annual rate of increase of this coverage over the past three years. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Steven A. Sette SPR25/3779 Page 2 January 2, 2026 [2] The number of Uxbridge retirees currently on the Town’s Medicare plans. The cost of those plans for both individuals and couples. The cumulative cost to the town for this group. The annual rate of increase of this coverage over the past three years. [3] The number of active employees on the Town’s health insurance plans. The cost of those plans for both individuals and families. The cumulative cost to the town for this group. The annual rate of increase of these plans for the past three years. In addition, at our last meeting you indicated that you had received guidance from counsel regarding the town’s failure to implement Chapter 38 section 9e which led to the recent Town Meeting article. You have also raised the potential for seeking reimbursement from our senior retirees for past coverage due to the failure of town officials to enact this provision. Please provide us with a copy of any communications that you have received or produced in this regard or any other correspondence with counsel, other Board members or third parties in Town records relating to retiree health insurance including via email or text. Please view this request for information broadly in scope to ensure that we receive relevant informational documents. The Town provided multiple responses on December 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Maguire petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3779, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records.

Steven A. Sette SPR25/3779 Page 3 January 2, 2026 The Town’s December 18th Responses In its initial December 18, 2025 response, following an apparent phone call with Mr. Maguire, the Town provided a responsive file and stated, “…please see the data requested attached.” The Town additionally stated: … I know that there are a number of files and there is a lot of information contained in these files; I want to note that it has only been recent that the Finance staff in Town Hall has done breakouts by group, previously all health insurance etc. was lumped into one category; in order to break out years prior to FY 24, would take a lot of time by Town Hall staff, if needed please make this as a separate request so that we can evaluate what is would cost to produce. I have also included the Power Point presentation presented to the IAC on 12/3/25… In reply to the Town, Mr. Maguire stated: Not sure at first glance or if I’m missing it but we are looking to get the breakout of the numbers of folks that are enrolled in each of the options for insurance… Also we requested a copy of the legal guidance that you have referred to both in the meeting you had with me this summer as well as in our meeting together…. Could you please send along as requested? … Last, just to be sure there is no confusion we requested copies of any correspondence/communication that has been written to or between boards or town officials related to these discussions. By omission are you confirming there have been no such communications[?] In a subsequent response on December 18, 2025, the Town stated: Communication between Town officials and Town Counsel is considered privileged and cannot be provided… The non-Medicare eligible retired employees receive the same plan choices that the retirees get at the same rates. I will have IT do a search on correspondence between boards or Town officials regarding Health Care discussions… In a further reply to the Town, Mr. Maguire argued that any privilege to the responsive legal correspondence has been waived and that the Town’s response is untimely. In its final December 18, 2025 response, the Town stated, “I have my IT person working now to provide the remainder of, if any, other information that you have requested… [L]egal correspondence does not qualify as it is privileged information and not considered for public distribution.”

Steven A. Sette SPR25/3779 Page 4 January 2, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition Mr. Maguire argued: In addition to being non-responsive to the original requested documents [the Town] committed to deliver, [the Town] did not provide a written explanation for denying the documents and a specific exemption… the guidance from counsel… was discussed with me in a private meeting… in a meeting with me, two members of our Uxbridge retirees group and the Chair of the Uxbridge Select Board [and] was also stated from the podium at the May 2025 Town Meeting by the Town’s legal counsel in response to citizen questions. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client's search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapa & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Although the Town indicates that it is withholding responsive records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the Town must provide a detailed description of the record(s) withheld, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record(s), and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). The Town must also clarify whether all of the communications withheld under the attorney-client privilege were between a client and an attorney during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such. Further, based on the information provided in Mr. Maguire’s appeal petition, the Town must also provide information regarding whether the communications were made in confidence and demonstrate that the privilege has not been waived.

Steven A. Sette SPR25/3779 Page 5 January 2, 2026 Additional Records Based on the Town’s response and the information provided in the appeal petition, where the Town states that its “IT person [is] working now to provide the remainder of, if any, other information that you have requested,” it also remains unclear whether the Town possesses any additional responsive records, aside from the withheld legal correspondence. Specifically, the Town must clarify whether it possesses any of the records referenced in Mr. Maguire’s initial response to the Town that he claims are missing from the Town’s production. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Maguire with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Maguire may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert Maguire